There are now on the market many products and services that present video and audio content to a user. These range from cable television, pay-per-view subscriptions, video on-demand, conventional video tape recorders (VCR's), digital video disks (DVD's), and more recently personal video recorders (PVRs). In the case of the PVR a user can conveniently record a television program from a cable or broadcast channel for play back at a later time. In fact the user can replay the recorded program as many times as they like.
PVRs are typically a microprocessor coupled to a large disk drive (e.g. in excess of 80 GB), a video presentation chip, a cable TV or broadcast tuner, and coordinating software to record and play back video content. PVRs are available from several companies, but in fact almost any contemporary personal computer can be configured to be a PVR. PVRs have become ever more popular for several reasons. First of course is the convenience of being able to record a program, even while watching another, and to play it back again. Another popular feature is the ability of viewers to fast forward through segments they do not want to watch. This is frequently done to skip over commercials or advertisements, and this has concerned many companies that pay to have their commercials aired during a show and therefore are paying to present the video content that was broadcast.
Another feature of some PVRs is the ability for their owners to duplicate the saved video content using a conventional DVD “burner” or recorder or to add an ancillary disk drive and then later remove it. When this is done the user can share video content on the DVD or disk drive with one or many friends. For sophisticated users the video content can even be rebroadcast or transferred over the Internet. With the right video editing software the video content can be altered, for example to remove commercials. This has caused a great deal of concern in various constituencies, from copyright holders of video content to the sponsors of broadcast programming. Some media content owners may be keeping certain video programming off the broadcast networks and cable services to prevent such potential copying. The content owners just do not want to let their valuable video content be replicated out of their control.
This problem is expected to become of much greater concern as higher quality (e.g. HDTV) broadcasting becomes more common. As movies are available in a sufficiently higher quality, duplication of this content may lead to reduction in revenue for movie studios and producers, perhaps similar to the effect that music sharing network software have been alleged to have on music CD sales.
To overcome the problem of duplication of valuable video content a number of encryption and encoding schemes have been put forward. Many use conventional cryptography algorithms such as public/private key encryption, private key encryption, and elliptical encryption. While any number of these can be deemed adequate at the moment, they are all subject to some level of suspicion that given enough time and computing power, they can be “cracked” i.e. subverted. When video content is recorded on a disk drive and when it is readily available (even at some cost) over the Internet, there may be a temptation for some people to decrypt the video content for illicit redistribution. Modern computers can process billions of instructions in a second, and this is increasing exponentially, so given time any of the current video encryption algorithms may prove vulnerable to being cracked.
Clearly there are enormous concerns over protecting the digital copies of movies that need to be addressed to encourage these content owners to distribute their best quality images over television, cable services, or via Internet communication. However, there are several other problems that need to be addressed to improve the use of current video program services (broadcast or cable).
For example, in spite of a seemingly endless number of cable or satellite channels available in the United States, there remain many demographic groups that cannot find programming to meet their needs. However, in the free market when there is a demand there is often a price at which goods or services will be provided. In the case of media content, it is anticipated that what is not currently available from standard broadcast or cable sources can be made available via the Internet if there is an adequate system of payment implemented. However, as previously discussed media content owners are concerned that an Internet distribution plan without adequate security may lead to a reduction or elimination of the value of their property.
Even when these fears are addressed, there needs to be a convenient method for charging for media content which has not heretofore been possible. This is compounded by the fact that many video consumers still anticipate that programming will be provided to them at no charge in exchange for the placement of commercials. However, if advertisers cannot rely on their commercials being seen by the audience whose programming they support, then they will no longer support the distribution of programming. While an alternative is to shift the cost of watching video content to the viewer, not all viewers will accept this or at least many might want to have a choice over what they have to pay for and what they can watch for free. Existing video media distribution schemes do not allow users to determine if they want to watch commercial messages and pay for programming or to skip these messages and pay a cost associated with each program.
Additionally, there exists the concern that an advertiser may only be interested in paying to sponsor a video program at certain times. For example, if an automobile manufacturer knew that a program they sponsor would be recorded and shown at a much later date (say 6 months later) they might not want to have an advertisement be shown for a model of a car that would no longer be in production at that time. Similarly, other advertisers might be more interested in having their advertisements shown only during the actual hours when they are open.
The concern over the payment for video content is not that of multi-national corporations alone. For example a PVR coupled with video editing software allows any person to record video content and add additional content to it, creating an enhanced video product. One example might be to add subtitles to a video program so an audience in another language can understand it. Another example is to add additional information to a video program (background information in the form or text, an audio track, or supplemental video). Needless to say not every person acting as a “desktop video-editor” will be interested in distributing their enhancements for free. Currently there is no convenient method for these individuals to market their work and receive payment for them.
Current video broadcast schemes do not allow for a high level of user interactivity. Most people are now familiar with highly interactive Internet sites, those that may change what they present based on what they know or think they know (for example from past purchasing history) about the person viewing a web page. For video content presentation, there have not been the same opportunities to customize information provided to the viewer or to let the user interact more meaningfully with a video program or a sponsor of a video program.
Furthermore, existing video media distribution schemes do not offer sponsors of the media any assurance that a commercial or other informative message will not be skipped over by a viewer. There is also no method to vary the advertisements shown to a user customized by the time of day when a video program is watched or other parameters related to the person watching, such as location or other customer specifics.
In general current media content distribution and presentation schemes and contemporary PVRs are relatively inflexible and are not capable of providing users with multiple choices of what they watch, when they watch it, and whether they have to pay for it or if others will. They also do not yet provide a media content security system that can be trusted. Furthermore, these schemes do not have an intelligent process to allow individuals to enhance existing video products or to create, distribute, and charge for their own video content.
A new distribution system is needed to answer these needs and provide the individual with greater control over what they watch.